_3.6 average___ On a scale of (0) strong
disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, should planning and policy for bus and rail be separated
planning and policy for highways?
_3.8 average___ On a scale of (0) strong disagreement, to (5)
neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, should financing bus and rail be separated from financing
_5.1 average___ On a scale of (0) strong
disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, should day-to-day management of bus and rail be separated
day-to-day management of highways?
Larry Baker (0) (0) (5)
I note that we are now using more gasoline per capita in Minnesota
than we did in 1970, despite vastly improved technology. This occurs
largely because we drive more, offsetting technological gains in
efficiency. How long can we continue this trend? This isn't a pure
market system. Because much of our petroleum comes from unstable
countries, prices would easily spiral out of control quickly, with
great harm to our citizens, when political instability occurs (which
it will). Hence we need to decide, collectively, to avoid calamity, by
planning a transportation system that envisions far greater use of
transit than cars. Every other country, and for that matter, almost
every U.S. city, has better transit than the Twin Cities. When the
petroleum crunch hits, the unprepared will suffer the most. This is
one of those points in history when historians will look back and say
"wasn't that obvious?"
Donald H. Anderson (5) (5) (5)
Ideally there should be coordination between the two groups of transit
uses but realistically is it possible, given the "me only" society
philosophy of today's society? Bus/rail vs. highways, local vs.state-wide,
political appointments vs. election.
Richard McGuire (0) (0) (8)
Charles Lutz (2) (2) (2)
Wayne Jennings (2) (2) (3)
Frank Schweigert (_) (_) (8)
The first two questions here do not reflect the central concerns being
addressed by Rep. Hausman in her proposed state-wide transit
authority. The funding streams for transit and highways are already
separated in significant ways, and Hausman's proposal is an attempt to
reduce fragmentation in the management and expansion transit--not an
attempt to further fragment planning or policy or funding. Civic
Caucus members have raised important questions about the proposal, but
taken together these questions do not point the way forward to an
integrated and fair system of public transit serving more of our
Carolyn Ring (3) (3) (3)
It is difficult to separate one type of transportation from the other
in serving the total population. The Civic Caucus member in #8
identified some of the key issues
John S. Adams (4) (3) (3)
(1) "Transit" is "moving people," and thus includes all
modes--walking, bicycles, taxis, school buses, city buses, light rail,
heavy (commuter) rail, van pools of all sponsorships, Metro Mobility,
air transport, and private cars and ride sharing in car pools.
Each type of transit involves different technologies, different
sponsors, different users, different laws, different forms of finance,
and different advocates.
The various transit types emerged over the years largely independently
of one another. It is complicated to consider how they might be
integrated more efficiently, effectively and equitably in the future,
so most discussions focus on one--or at most two--modes when planning
is considered (e.g., park and ride linkages; bus and rail linkages,
park and fly linkages, etc.).
The issues surrounding transit (considered in the broadest sense)
differ in the Twin Cities commuting field vs. the regional centers
around the state and their respective commute fields.
(2) Transit services and their supporting infrastructure are partly a
public good and partly a private good. How to finance them and who
should pay in terms of up-front capital investment and annual
operating costs will always be contentious. It would make more sense
to figure out where we wish to end up and then figure out how to get
there than to begin the conversation with worries about how to pay.
(3) A statewide, long-range (40-50 years) transportation plan that
considers all modes of people movement, freight movement, and other
commodity movement (including pipelines & waterways) is sorely needed
and long overdue. Going at these questions piecemeal with short-term
thinking will not yield a good long-term set of results.
Jim Hetland (1) (1) (6)
Roy Thompson (3) (3) (3)
Brian Thiel (0) (7) (3)
Too many questions left to answer. Too soon to make huge investments.
Rep Hausman left a number of important questions asked by Civic Caucus
unexplained (or they were not detailed in your summary). Therefore, I
do not believe there is anything close enough yet to being a clear
idea about how to decide near-term or long-term transportation
priorities or policy. Without a consensus on a plan or concept, I
oppose forging ahead with either large scale transit funding or
Unfortunately, muddling through is often the only choice left when so
many indeterminate variables are so puzzling that any consensus about
"the plan" has not yet been forged.
Noteworthy, it seems to me, is the underlying presumption of your
guests that additional tax funding is an assumed requirement. If it
would cost $15B to build an extra lane around the Cities, has anyone
asked how the cost/benefit of that compares with the cost/benefit of
the same expenditure in a combined road + transit plan. For me, and I
believe, lots of others, every decision to dig deep and pay for
something must be based on realistic expectations of beneficial
outcomes. For me, that has not happened yet. You can count on this...
if I am seated in the House chamber next year, I will be asking for
that sort of "splainin'" before I cast any "yea" for B...I...G...
William Kuisle (10) (10) (10)
Bill Hamm (7) (7) (7)
While I agree with these statements (all at about a 7 level) I
absolutely oppose her structure and financing options. First the
giving only 2 seats to out state Minnesota on this 9 member proposed
board is equivalent to 0 representation (token representation if you
will and while metro representation has some elected qualities our
representation is politically hand picked, no thanks. Then there is
her proposal to go to the regressive sales tax to put this on the back
of our poorest residents, no way will I support that. Just more pie in
the sky as I see it.
Clarence Shallbetter (_) (0) (0)
Al Quie (10) (10) (10)
No elected office holders should be on the Transit Authority. Councils
and boards should appoint just like the governor would in the
proposal. There ought to be qualifications criteria for the members of
Vici Oshiro (5) (5) (5)
I'm persuadable; would want much more discussion of issues and a
variety of potential solutions.
State Rep. Bev Scalze (10) (10) (10)
Creating a statewide Minnesota Transit Authority may become an
outstate vs. metro contest as we have seen with MNDOT funding where
outstate communities lobby for more funding than their tax base can
support, therefore requiring movement of tax dollars from metro to
outstate to fund their systems. It may make more sense to create an
expandable 12 or 13-county transit authority around the metro area to
counties and residents that use services presently funded by the
counties in the current transit authority.
I refer everyone to my hybrid elected Met Council. Restore Met Transit
separate from Wastewater and protect that dedicated revenue stream.
Met Council is out of the housing business. The original Met Council
is restored, more as a data base and less as a planning agency...and
no taxing authority.
Appointed council members are replaced with sitting county
commissioners with the task of budget over-sight of the three
entities. It has always been a pet peeve of mine that transit is
joined at the hip with roads and bridges and has proved to be to the
detriment of our highway infrastructure.
I believe we as taxpayers should fully fund transit for those who
depend on it for medical and economic reasons (10-15% of metro
population?) and the rest of operating costs be made up at the fare
box. The free market will determine the right-sized transit system.
Chris Brazelton (2) (2) (8)
There is a strong need for coordination of transit options and funding
for transit and highways so that groups are not working at cross
purposes for something that, ultimately, serves a united purpose of
moving people and products around.
There needs to be meaningful regional input with accountability,
whether it is through elected officials or appointed citizens boards
or a combination of the two.
The day-to-day management needs to be a little more autonomous so that
expertise is directed where it belongs.
Any transit or transportation options involve local, state and federal
funding and subsidy to some degree. How much and whether options meet
comprehensive criteria, including air quality, meeting the needs of
low income, seniors, disabled community, etc. all need to be a part of
I met a family living in Delano that is struggling with transportation
problems. The parents are seniors with an adult son who is wheel-chair
bound and otherwise disabled so that driving will never be an option.
He is living with his parents as he can't afford to live on his own.
They are unable to transport him to an employment program in Buffalo
and there is no public transportation or volunteer options available
to him right now. What happens when his parents aren't around anymore?
Robert A. Freeman (3) (6) (7)
I did not find Rep. Hausman's separation argument compelling, and I
think it is poor public policy to separate these functions. It seems
like it creates competition between the two for public dollars. I
think separating day-to-day management makes some sense but the two
camps should still be coordinated.
Chuck Slocum (10) (10) (10)
I appreciate the earnestness and lack of partisanship to which Rep.
Hausman brings to all that she does. Discussing a new transit
authority is necessary, too long delayed; such an entity ought to be
directly linked and fully integrated with a broader transportation
oversight to include roads, bridges and all the rest.
I am concerned, as your report indicates, that different dedicated
revenues serve, separately, (a) state highways, (b) county state aided
highways and roads, (d) city state aided roads, (e) metro transit, (f)
five-county transit ways, and (g) transit in some cities and counties
in Greater Minnesota.
A great deal of long term and strategic leadership is needed in
transportation and the Civic Caucuses thinking ought to be encouraged.
As for the question of who will pay for this--it will be the taxpayers
and citizens who are users of the various systems.
David Alden (0) (0) (0)
Bob White (4) (4) (_)
Tentative 4s because integrated transportation management seems to me
desirable, maybe even essential, but I really don't know whether it's
possible. Valuable discussion.
I don't see how one can separate transit issues from highway ones
since both are involved in moving people and goods. I can recall
during my urban planning days the inconclusive exercises we went thru
trying to come up with ways to generate a divorce between the American
driver and his/her car.
As for my reaction to the questions I'd have to strongly disagree with
any idea of separating bus and rail from highway planning, policy
development, funding and management.
John Nowicki (0) (0) (0)
I am concerned with the proposed composition of the supervisory board.
It is seven county heavy. That elderly person mentioned by Hausman
still will not have transport.
As a side note, the Caucus still apparently, has closed meetings.
Future meetings are listed, but no time or place.
Joe Lampe (0) (0) (0)
The proposals are incoherent and unhelpful. Multiplication and
fragmentation of transportation management entities is not the answer.
The 9-member MN Transit Authority will accomplish nothing and will
reduce accountability. The fundamental problem with transit is that
existing technologies DO NOT WORK and cannot be made to work (high
cost, poor service, energy inefficient, etc). Rearranging the deck
chairs on a sinking Titanic is useless activity. A technology paradigm
shift is required (i.e., podcars or personal rapid transit). Plus we
have to set a goal of cost effectively increasing transit trips by 10X
in 25 years.
Jim Keller (0) (0) (0)
I believe all major transportation decisions and funding should remain
with the Legislature - not some independent agency.
This is a really bad idea. Your questions miss the point--the idea
adds to the fragmentation in decision making for the Twin Cities
region and makes it even more difficult to have a region wide plan
that can be funded and implemented in a way that recognizes the
resource constraints as well as responds to the problems that need
attention in a sequence that makes sense.
The Legislature is the place where the mess was created and they have
made it worse in the last session with the transit funding
fragmentation they created. Does anyone really think that a state wide
thing will understand the needs of the metro area? How will we ever
get the connection between transit and development that is needed with
this added fragmentation? The merged Metropolitan Council was the
right first step. Some legislators don't like the current Governor,
for good reason, so they want to get at him by taking away the ability
of the organization he controls--the Legislature created the new
Metropolitan Council-to develop and fund a thoughtful regional
In short, I think you missed this one big time. The person you should
talk to is Nacho Diaz, former transportation Division Director at the
Council. Let me know if you want more information on this issue--it is
too important to not get right.
Bright Dornblaser (0) (0) (8)
Planning for bus and rail ideally will be planned comprehensively and
conjointly, even if the separate funding for roads will make it very
difficult to develop or to implement a "best" plan. It should be
supported by financing from one pot, but politically it is very
doubtful so there is a need to do the best one can given that reality.
Day to day management should be done by experts in the different modes
of transportation which probably are different. Hopefully the
different experts would be constrained in their decisions by any
Agree a critical issue is who has the right to decide on a
comprehensive plan to bring the needed good judgment beyond political
considerations. The Hausman proposal does not provide the right
balance of representation to have confidence it will develop a
balanced plan that will achieve necessary support for either any
proposed plan or its funding.
Dan Loritz (3) (8) (8)
Ray Ayotte (5) (5) (5)
Larry Schluter (7) (4) (5)
This is quite a topic. A lot more questions need to be asked. There
needs to be coordination due to the vast of money used for both but we
need to look at bus and rail somewhat separately. However, this is a